If discovered, would that not also be "false or misleading information"?

There are plenty of reasons to not want datacenters in the vicinity of one's home. Noise is a big one for sure. Power/electricity may be, especially if the datacenters don't build their own generation. But water...water is a stupid argument. Modern Datacenters use closed-loop cooling systems. Yes, there is a negligible amount of loss/replenishment, but for practical purposes the amount of water used is only enough to initially charge the system. It's not like there's an in/out usage thing similar to what you might find in semi-conductor manufacturing (and even those have gotten better.)

TL;DR - Water usage is not a valid basis for objection against datacenters. Find some other reason.

Sports gambling was definitely Illegal in most U.S. States until fairly recently, at least outside of sanctioned Off-Track Betting facilities which were pretty limited. Don't have any knowledge of Canadian betting laws/history, but willing to concede the point.

Sports betting still happened across the board, legal or not. The only difference now is that the government gets a vig instead of organized crime, at least when the laws are followed. Not sure it's really any better or worse than it ever was.

Not quite. AI Generated code is not copyright-able at all. It's not GPL or anything else by default, and can't be under any license I'm aware of. It could still be intellectual property/trade secret though. Nobody is required to release AI generated code, but nothing is necessarily stopping the AI/LLM from generating that same code for someone else.

Well said.

Otherwise known as a "supply chain attack." China is now almost entirely dependent on Russian oil. Guess what...

Otherwise known as "Statistics."

No. Anthropic named specific use cases that they did not want to allow. DoD/W said they didn't want Anthropic (or any other vendor) telling them what they could and couldn't do within "Lawful Use." The narratives are quite different.

I'm not saying that the DoD/W would or doesn't plan to never do something unlawful. They very well might and certainly have in the past. But, that's not the argument they are making in this case.

I can see why Apple may have different goals with their App Store than Google would, particularly with respect to Apple's supposed "safe/walled ecosystem" model.

In Google's case though, they don't really make those claims at the same intensity. So, why not just have an "Safety Assured by Google" program, maybe not unlike the "Blue Checkmark" on X or "Verified" tag on LinkedIn? Apps on the Play Store with said "Assurance" tag get priority listing in searches, and I suppose the benefit to the end user of some sense of safety, but in trade the developer has to agree to the Google's fee structure.

I obviously don't run Google's business, but if I did, I would assume that getting my cut of some percentage of Store revenue would be more than 0% of another store's revenue.

Spotify has been profitable since 2024 and projects increased revenue and profit for the foreseeable future. Maybe other stand-along streamers are having problems, but Spotify is doing fine. Not defending their treatment of artists exactly, but the premise of the headline is nonsense.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quot...

Not really, but they're not the same OS, so there's no reason that (supposedly) iOS or iPadOS being "secure" has anything to do with MacOS being secure.

It is, so why would an article present them as any sort of conclusive data?

W?

"downloaded known pirated copies of books from the internet, made unlicensed copies of them,"

Except they didn't do that. Anthropic didn't make copies. I concede that this complaint alleges that they did, but there was no evidence produced showing that happened.

TFA's information is meaningless if the reader doesn't understand how GDP is calculated, which most people don't. I do. While I agree with many that GDP is not a particularly great way to measure macroeconomic performance, it's what we use, so for comparison purposes it is useful for historical reference.

The implication of the minimalized impact of data center investment in the U.S. on GDP means something that a lot of people won't like. It means that the high levels of growth indicated by GDP are not an AI bubble of investment, but rather much broader-based growth in productivity (whether aided by AI or not.) That is, the broader-based economy is growing roughly 40-50% faster than the estimates assuming AI expansion were feeding that 40-50% of GDP growth. The middle-lower class isn't feeling it yet, but if history s any teacher, they will in a significant way in the not so distant future. Draw your own conclusions.